Search results

Introduces the special issue of the papers presented at the 9th International EurOMA Conference, 2‐4 June 2002, Copenhagen, Denmark. The articles represent the wide variety of topics presented at the conference and also a common theme: "mew challenges in operations management".

Policy Analysis of Structural Reforms in Higher Education -- Preface -- Note -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- List of Box -- Structural Reform in European Higher Education: An Introduction -- System-Level Change in European Higher Education -- Structural Reforms in Higher Education -- Structural Reforms in 11 European Countries -- Horizontal Differentiation Reform Processes -- Vertical Differentiation Structural Reform Processes -- Institutional Relationships as Structural Reforms -- A Public Policy Analysis Framework for Studying Structural Reforms

This study analyses how different types of system-level (or 'landscape') structural reforms in higher education have been designed and implemented in selected higher education systems. In the 12 case studies that form the core of the project, the researchers examine reforms aimed at:• Increasing horizontal differentiation between different types of higher education institutions (for example reforms to introduce or modify the role of universities of applied science);• Increasing vertical differentiation through increasing or decreasing positional or status differences between higher education institutions (for example, reforms aimed at concentrating research in a limited number of universities) and;• Changing institutional interrelationships between higher education institutions (for example, through mergers, the formation of associations of institutions).In each case, the researchers set out to understand the origins and objectives of the reforms examined, the why they were designed and implemented, the extent to which they achieved their objectives and the factors affecting success or failure. The overall objective is to provide policy makers at the European, national and institutional levels with policy relevant conclusions concerning the design, implementation and evaluation of structural reforms

PurposeThis study aims to understand how small‐ to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) can build a dynamic capability for new‐to‐market product development.Design/methodology/approachFive innovative and ambitious case firms were selected and studied longitudinally over the course of five years.FindingsWithin this group distinct development processes are identified that enable them to satisfy the unmet needs of new customers using their current technologies. However to sustain this activity managers need to empower cross‐functional teams to evaluate new technologies with an ever‐increasing number of pioneering partners. An ideal sequence is proposed for them to achieve this by systematising learning between projects and thereby reconfiguring their development processes to meet the changing needs of the market.Research limitations/implicationsThis method appears most suited to SMEs able to develop new‐to‐market products in conjunction with technologically discerning customers and suppliers. As such it may be less applicable outside the observed business‐to‐business markets.Originality/valueThe five cases studied aptly illustrate the interplay of certain paths, positions and processes in terms of how they relate to new‐to‐market product development performance. The implication for researchers and managers is that consideration of all of these factors is necessary.

PurposeThe textiles, clothing, and footwear (TCF) industry has struggled in Australia since the government commenced dismantling tariffs. By sourcing from Asia, middlemen undercut established suppliers, and retail chains set benchmark low prices with their imported "house" labels. The policy‐makers predicted that local producers would become more efficient, and export to make up for lost sales, but the media paints a picture of rising imports, retrenchments, and factory closures. The research objective was to discover what strategies the survivors (actually) employ in adapting to the pressures of globalisation.Design/methodology/approachMore than 30 companies were involved in the study, ranging from small family businesses to subsidiaries of big multinationals. Each case study was based on an interview with a senior executive, normally followed by a plant tour. This methodology suits a fresh topic, as it avoids preconceptions and imposes no bounds.FindingsResults show that the policy change was based on "pie in the sky" forecasts. Increasingly, TCF production is transferred to cheap offshore locations, generally via subcontracting plus the "badging" of foreign designs. To survive, local factories should focus on quality and customer service, preferably in niche markets (like uniforms), or for specific customer groups, and develop technologically advanced products. A move down the supply chain into retailing can also assist. Large multinational corporations that engage in foreign direct investment dominate the management literature.Originality/valueThis paper presents a different perspective, neglected in international operations management, whereby domestically oriented businesses attempt to defend themselves against the adverse consequences of globalisation.

AbstractThis article presents a typology of continuous improvement (CI) implementation processes. The typology is based on an empirical study of 26 companies engaged in the implementation of CI. The data underpinning the typology was collected through retrospective interviews guided by a semi‐structured questionnaire. Four different approaches to implementing CI are identified, described and analysed. The resulting typology contributes to the development of CI implementation theory—an underdeveloped area of theory—and is useful for companies considering to engage in, or step up, their CI activities. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Reports research which aimed to find the organizational conditions
required for companies considering innovating their operating core by
adopting any advanced manufacturing technology, and implementing and
operating this technology effectively. Describes a model of the
organization of manufacturing innovation which was used in longitudinal
case studies of the adoption, implementation and early operation of
flexible manufacturing systems (FMS), to analyse these processes and to
find the conditions affecting their level of success. It appears that
the activities, innovation roles, organizational arrangements and slack
resources which are required according to the model determine most of
the success of the innovation process. Concludes that the model
contributes to our understanding of how to organize and manage complex
processes such as manufacturing innovation.

PurposeResearch on best practices suffers from some fundamental problems. The problem addressed in the article is that authors tend to postulate, rather than show, the practices they address to be best – whether these practices do indeed produce best performance is often not investigated.Design/methodology/approachThis article assumes that the best performing companies must be the ones deploying the best practices. In order to find out what are those practices, the highest performing companies in the 2002 International Manufacturing Strategy Survey database were identified, and the role 14 practices play in these companies was investigated.FindingsProcess focus, pull production, equipment productivity and environmental compatibility appear to qualify as best practices. Quality management and ICT may have been best practice previously, but lost that status. E‐business, new product development (NPD), supplier strategy and outsourcing are relatively new, cannot yet be qualified as, but may develop into, best practice. Four other practices do not produce any significant performance effects.Research limitations/implicationsThere are four limitations to the research: Incompleteness of the set of practices tested: lack of insight into the effects of interaction between practices and the way in and extent to which they were implemented; good explanatory but poor predictive power; and lack of contextuality.Originality/valueTaking the position that best practice must be what best performing companies do, the paper is useful for managers using benchmarking to review the design and performance of their manufacturing system, and for scholars engaged or interested in best practice studies.

This study analyses how different types of system-level (or 'landscape') structural reforms in higher education have been designed and implemented in selected higher education systems. In the 12 case studies that form the core of the project, the researchers examine reforms aimed at:• Increasing horizontal differentiation between different types of higher education institutions (for example reforms to introduce or modify the role of universities of applied science);• Increasing vertical differentiation through increasing or decreasing positional or status differences between higher education institutions (for example, reforms aimed at concentrating research in a limited number of universities) and;• Changing institutional interrelationships between higher education institutions (for example, through mergers, the formation of associations of institutions).In each case, the researchers set out to understand the origins and objectives of the reforms examined, the why they were designed and implemented, the extent to which they achieved their objectives and the factors affecting success or failure. The overall objective is to provide policy makers at the European, national and institutional levels with policy relevant conclusions concerning the design, implementation and evaluation of structural reforms

In this working paper we reflect upon performance agreements in higher education (HE): during the last decade, performance-based steering tools were introduced or reformed in almost every higher education system. They are regarded as a promising instrument to contribute to the achievement of high quality higher education, but in countries that have a longer history with performance agreements (such as many U.S. and German states, Austria, Finland and Denmark) sometimes significant changes have taken place between generations, and we want to understand why this is. With this working paper we highlight a number of key issues to be taken into account when the introduction or evaluation of performance agreements is being considered. We have gathered information (from laws, white papers, websites of governments and institutions, and expert interviews) on a range of higher education systems alongside a general literature review. We argue policy makers should not to copy 'blindly' the design and implementation of performance agreements from other countries, as their culture, political and legal system, policy style, size, HE system characteristics and strategic agendas are different. Nonetheless, experiences from elsewhere are an important source for inspiration and a valuable input